Oh well...Another global warming protest delayed by cold...

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA has what they call a "Fact" page: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide Try and dispute some fact

DIRECT MEASUREMENTS: 2005-PRESENT
Data source: Monthly measurements (corrected for average seasonal cycle). Credit: NOAA


PROXY (INDIRECT) MEASUREMENTS
Data source: Reconstruction from ice cores.
Credit: NOAA


Time Series: 2002-2014
Data source: Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS).
Credit: NASA

download: data: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well I see that they still try and link pollution to AGW..

That is what the AGW cult does!

Pollution does not equal AGW..

Also CO2 does NOT control climate..

really?

here is what I see: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first chart shows atmospheric CO2 levels in recent years, corrected for average seasonal cycles. The second chart shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.

The time series below shows global distribution and variation of the concentration of mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide in parts per million (ppm). The overall color of the map shifts toward the red with advancing time due to the annual increase of CO2.

Missions that observe CO2
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2)​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Home Page - Orbiting Carbon Observatory Jet Propulsion Lab is in on the conspiracy too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there is this:

The OCO-2 team is currently developing techniques that will verify the observations of column averaged dry air mole fraction (Xco2) acquired from space. Ground-based Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) will acquire precise and accurate measurements of Xco2 from a variety of locations. Very precise laboratory instruments will provide detailed characteristics of spectrographic lines of O2 and CO2 to the precision required for proper interpretation of the acquired atmospheric spectral measurements. In addition, the OCO-2 project will support the acquisition of in situ observations of the CO2 mixing ratio from flasks, tall towers, and aircraft. Research scientists will employ all of these sources of information to calibrate, verify and improve the accuracy of the OCO-2 space-borne measurements of Xco2.

For further information, see:
1) OCO-2 Science Validation Plan Science Validation Plan (PDF, 1.59 MB)
2) OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs Document OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs (PDF, 1.25 MB)

In situ Observations
In situ CO2 measured from surface sites and aircraft will play a vital role in the validation of Xco2 measured from space. Among the merits of these observations are:​

and then there is more

How can people go on attacking the science when they never actually go at the science?

 

[Treeshepherd]

Of course they do. Now try and dispute a scientific fact put out by NASA: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide

I don't dispute the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. What can be disputed is the significance of that fact. The biosphere does a good job of mitigating CO2 levels. " A new NASA-led study shows that tropical forests may be absorbing far more carbon dioxide than many scientists thought, in response to rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas."
CO2 emissions may help tropical rainforests grow faster

People up here in Humboldt pump CO2 into their indoor weed gardens. It can make the plants grow up to 20% faster. It makes the rainforests grow faster. I worry a lot more about deforestation than CO2 levels, which I consider to be a distraction from more important issues. If you just focus on CO2, suddenly nuke plants and fracking become brilliant ideas. Screw that.

How much CO2 in the air is due to the burning of fossil fuels, and how much is due to volcanoes and organic decay? That's an unresolved question.

How much difference does, say, a change of 10 parts per million of a common and already abundant gas make? That's an unresolved question. Maybe there are more significant cycles to consider, other than the carbon cycle, for instance the cycles of solar radiation and the changing orbit of the planet. If I had 380 parts per million of salt in my food, and I changed that to 420 ppm, would I be able to taste the difference?

 

[westwall]

Dante claims to care about science. Anyone who listens to the fraudulent claims of the climatologists and ignores the very real evidence of their fraud....has abandoned the scientific method and hates science. Period.

man up


Dispute a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide

come on. you know you can do it. NASA is wrong. Just show us all with facts. Dispute NASA's facts

Those are called opinions. Why is it that you people can't seem to figure out the difference? Here are facts. These facts show beyond question that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature. Not the other way around.

Impressive graph. What has that to do with NASA science?

NASA web site: "The second chart shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores." - Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide

You trying to dispute a NASA fact by calling it an opinion?

It shows us that NASA's OPINION is false. Plain and simple.

You still have NOT disputed one single fact put out by NASA. Go to their page Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide pick a few facts and dispute them.

It should be very simple to do if what you claim is true

That's because they have presented no facts Dante, they have presented opinion. Nothing they show is actually supported by empirical data. None of it. This is NASA trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to get money. That's all. Obama has stripped them of billions that they would have used for planetary research so now they are left to grub for the global warming money.

That's all this is.

The Arctic sea ice level is within the two decade norm. That's a fact. The AGW pundits said the Arctic would be ice free TWO years ago. They were wrong as wrong can be. EVERY prediction they have made has been WRONG.

 

[westwall]

there is this:

The OCO-2 team is currently developing techniques that will verify the observations of column averaged dry air mole fraction (Xco2) acquired from space. Ground-based Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) will acquire precise and accurate measurements of Xco2 from a variety of locations. Very precise laboratory instruments will provide detailed characteristics of spectrographic lines of O2 and CO2 to the precision required for proper interpretation of the acquired atmospheric spectral measurements. In addition, the OCO-2 project will support the acquisition of in situ observations of the CO2 mixing ratio from flasks, tall towers, and aircraft. Research scientists will employ all of these sources of information to calibrate, verify and improve the accuracy of the OCO-2 space-borne measurements of Xco2.

For further information, see:
1) OCO-2 Science Validation Plan Science Validation Plan (PDF, 1.59 MB)
2) OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs Document OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs (PDF, 1.25 MB)

In situ Observations
In situ CO2 measured from surface sites and aircraft will play a vital role in the validation of Xco2 measured from space. Among the merits of these observations are:​

and then there is more

How can people go on attacking the science when they never actually go at the science?

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming. This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You still have NOT disputed one single fact put out by NASA. Go to their page Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide pick a few facts and dispute them.

It should be very simple to do if what you claim is true

That's because they have presented no facts Dante, they have presented opinion. Nothing they show is actually supported by empirical data. None of it. This is NASA trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to get money. That's all. Obama has stripped them of billions that they would have used for planetary research so now they are left to grub for the global warming money.

That's all this is.

The Arctic sea ice level is within the two decade norm. That's a fact. The AGW pundits said the Arctic would be ice free TWO years ago. They were wrong as wrong can be. EVERY prediction they have made has been WRONG.

Aside from your rants about 'Obama' 'AGW pundits' you are saying NASA's Fact page is not filled with facts but with opinions?

How does your comment on the Arctic sea ice level refute what NASA has put out? What did NASA say that you are refuting?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there is this:

The OCO-2 team is currently developing techniques that will verify the observations of column averaged dry air mole fraction (Xco2) acquired from space. Ground-based Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) will acquire precise and accurate measurements of Xco2 from a variety of locations. Very precise laboratory instruments will provide detailed characteristics of spectrographic lines of O2 and CO2 to the precision required for proper interpretation of the acquired atmospheric spectral measurements. In addition, the OCO-2 project will support the acquisition of in situ observations of the CO2 mixing ratio from flasks, tall towers, and aircraft. Research scientists will employ all of these sources of information to calibrate, verify and improve the accuracy of the OCO-2 space-borne measurements of Xco2.

For further information, see:
1) OCO-2 Science Validation Plan Science Validation Plan (PDF, 1.59 MB)
2) OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs Document OCO-2 Spectroscopic Needs (PDF, 1.25 MB)

In situ Observations
In situ CO2 measured from surface sites and aircraft will play a vital role in the validation of Xco2 measured from space. Among the merits of these observations are:​

and then there is more

How can people go on attacking the science when they never actually go at the science?

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming. This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

So you are lecturing NASA scientists on how to perform science? Seriously?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course they do. Now try and dispute a scientific fact put out by NASA: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide

I don't dispute the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. What can be disputed is the significance of that fact. The biosphere does a good job of mitigating CO2 levels

How is this disputing a scientific fact put out by NASA? What does NASA say about the significance that you disagree with and based on what? You have scientific expertise that you would put up against NASA scientists?

I'm serious. Debate the NASA science. You are the one who denies it or you do not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Huh? You are denying global warming has happened?

 

[westwall]

You still have NOT disputed one single fact put out by NASA. Go to their page Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide pick a few facts and dispute them.

It should be very simple to do if what you claim is true

That's because they have presented no facts Dante, they have presented opinion. Nothing they show is actually supported by empirical data. None of it. This is NASA trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to get money. That's all. Obama has stripped them of billions that they would have used for planetary research so now they are left to grub for the global warming money.

That's all this is.

The Arctic sea ice level is within the two decade norm. That's a fact. The AGW pundits said the Arctic would be ice free TWO years ago. They were wrong as wrong can be. EVERY prediction they have made has been WRONG.

Aside from your rants about 'Obama' 'AGW pundits' you are saying NASA's Fact page is not filled with facts but with opinions?

How does your comment on the Arctic sea ice level refute what NASA has put out? What did NASA say that you are refuting?

It basically says that CO2 is rising. No one disputes that. What they can't show...is any sort of effect for that increase. None.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

 

[westwall]

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Huh? You are denying global warming has happened?

Of course not. It started most recently 14,000 years ago, and in between there have been cyclic periods of cooling and warming. This is merely the most recent warming period, before this one was the Little Ice Age, which came after the Medieval Warming Period, which came after the 6th Century Climate Collapse, which came after the Roman Warming Period, which came after the cooling cycle before that, which came after the Minoan Warming Period, which came after the cooling period before that, which came after the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which came after.....

Do you get the picture? Nothing happening now, is any different from that which has happened before...many, many, many times before.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You still have NOT disputed one single fact put out by NASA. Go to their page Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Carbon Dioxide pick a few facts and dispute them.

It should be very simple to do if what you claim is true

That's because they have presented no facts Dante, they have presented opinion. Nothing they show is actually supported by empirical data. None of it. This is NASA trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to get money. That's all. Obama has stripped them of billions that they would have used for planetary research so now they are left to grub for the global warming money.

That's all this is.

The Arctic sea ice level is within the two decade norm. That's a fact. The AGW pundits said the Arctic would be ice free TWO years ago. They were wrong as wrong can be. EVERY prediction they have made has been WRONG.

Aside from your rants about 'Obama' 'AGW pundits' you are saying NASA's Fact page is not filled with facts but with opinions?

How does your comment on the Arctic sea ice level refute what NASA has put out? What did NASA say that you are refuting?

It basically says that CO2 is rising. No one disputes that. What they can't show...is any sort of effect for that increase. None.

Maybe you need to go back to the page here: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

General questions

• What’s the difference between climate change and global warming?
  
  
• What’s the difference between weather and climate?
  
  
• Is the sun causing global warming?
  
  
• Is it too late to prevent climate change?
  
  
  
  
  
• Is the ozone hole causing climate change?
  
  
• Do scientists agree on climate change?
  
  
• What’s NASA got to do with climate change?
  
  
• What is the greenhouse effect?
  
  
• How do we know what greenhouse gas and temperature levels were in the distant past?
  
  
  
  
  
• Why does the temperature record shown on your "Vital Signs" page begin at 1880?
  
  

 

[westwall]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

Consensus is the language of politics, not science. Remember that. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, he'll tell me "it's 186,282 miles per second. He won't say "well, the scientific consensus is"...

That 97% number has likewise been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly, and yet you drones continue to trot that bullshit meme out as if it is a talisman. It isn't. It is sheer and utter bullshit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Huh? You are denying global warming has happened?

Of course not. It started most recently 14,000 years ago, and in between there have been cyclic periods of cooling and warming. This is merely the most recent warming period, before this one was the Little Ice Age, which came after the Medieval Warming Period, which came after the 6th Century Climate Collapse, which came after the Roman Warming Period, which came after the cooling cycle before that, which came after the Minoan Warming Period, which came after the cooling period before that, which came after the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which came after.....

Do you get the picture? Nothing happening now, is any different from that which has happened before...many, many, many times before.

You stated before that the 'global warming theory' was debunked. Now you say global warming is a reality and not a theory? Maybe you are conflating claims? Maybe you are mimicking talking points put out by those with vested interests have been misrepresenting about what climate scientists actually said? Is this not a more likely possibility and probability? It would explain your outlier view against a consensus of experts in the field of climate science.

What has happened and is happening now, that is very different from that which has happened before is the Industrial Revolution and more. To obscure this is to deny reality. None of the previous centuries have had man doing what he has is now doing. Super fund clean up sites? Love Canal? We could go on.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

Consensus is the language of politics, not science. Remember that. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, he'll tell me "it's 186,282 miles per second. He won't say "well, the scientific consensus is"...

That 97% number has likewise been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly, and yet you drones continue to trot that bullshit meme out as if it is a talisman. It isn't. It is sheer and utter bullshit.

Consensus is a word. Scientific consensus is a term that has existed way before climate science came into being. You are not sounding nutty. Although I do enjoy challenging you I am serious about asking what and why people believe what they do. I have seen and heard scientists on television specials and documentaries use the phrase "well, the scientific consensus is" when asked specific questions about things having nothing to do with climate science. Now enough of this red herring.

Scientific consensus can be wrong. Nothing new here, but this does not make your case "They've been wrong before, so they are wrong now"

I think you are coming around to the reality that you do not actually dispute a single scientific fact put out by NASA on the subject of climate science

 

[mamooth]

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming.

No, it didn't. You're directly lining up the CO2 and temp measurements from the ice cores, which is wrong. The air bubbles in each ice layer (which give the CO2 measurement) are younger than the ice (which gives the temperature measurement) in each ice layer . To match dates correctly, the CO2 line has to be shifted left a few thousand years. Given the ambiguity involved, it's hard to tell which came first, the CO2 or the higher temps.

But even if you didn't mess that up, you'd still be failing in another way. The present is not going to act like the past if conditions are much different in the present. And conditions are different. A clever third grader could spot the logical error that you're depending on here. Rest assured that the actual scientists don't make such a basic error.

This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The scientists directly measure the outgoing longwave IR squeezing down in the CO2 bands, the downward backradiation increasing, and the heat balance changing. Those are smoking guns that have nothing to do with correlation or models.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Fantasy statistics don't count. Real world, 2014 was the hottest year ever, and the temperature trend has been steadily upwards the whole time.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

Global warming science is a superb example of the scientific method. Climate scientists had a theory, made predictions based on that theory, and saw those predictions come true, over and over, for decades running. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because of its long record of success according to the scientific method.

Deniers? They refuse to even make predictions. That's how averse to the scientific method they are. They seem to think that screaming at the other guy proves their own theory.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

hmm...

not a bad thread if people can be kept on point and topic. Who says one can't learn anything new @ usmb?